So Eklipse, what do you think of the American plans of false flag deeds in the 1960s (including a terrorist attack) in order to get grounds for war on Cuba?

You'll have to specify. What plans are we speaking of exactly? Were they ever more than proposed plans?

Both are bad, in my opinion

But why? Patriotism is better than apathy. Apathetic citizens are the worst because many of them can't be bothered to do anything that doesn't benefit them directly.

I say that these are just built by the governments so that they have a folk that does not revolt, that will help the government, and that will potentially die for the government.

There is some truth to that. However, 2 out of the 3 are not inherently bad. Governments want to prevent revolts for obvious reasons, and unless a government is truly oppressive people shouldn't be revolting.

A government does not function if it's citizens are too apathetic to provide any help for it.

As for the third part, the wars in the Middle East comes to mind, and I don't really have a rebuttal for that. However, every soldier who went into Iraq was purely a volunteer. If the U.S resorted to bringing back the draft, well then we'd have a serious issue.

(I'm unpatriotic and proud though, like the gays :)).

The gays are unpatriotic? I have a close friend who is both very patriotic and gay at the same time. However, he defies almost every stereotype associated with homosexuals so I probably shouldn't use him for an example.

It's not just one time; serially defending the same country without much provocation, it could be just concentrated anti-[country]-ism and this country's defendant is just trying to make sure each country doesn't get blame they don't deserve.

The U.S receives a very disproportionate amount of flak on this forum. Very rarely is Russia, China, or any European country put on trial.

I've never said that the U.S is perfect, and I've admitted it's mistakes and problems before. However, it receives more hate from certain users than is really warranted.

(first of all sorry again about being off topic with this thread prab, I had to answer Juq's hypocrisy and lies, secondly I had to divide my post into 2 because it was too long)

Thank you for supporting me even though your opinion differs, this is much more than what many folk could truthfully say they did. But...

Supported by the worst troll ever Irony? Nice support! Congratulations! (I think it must have been him but since his comments have been deleted by fizzer..)

A debate with hands is called a fistfight :)

Also, Eklipse and Martian are being somewhat mindly as they usually are, they are usually fine to argue with.

Koala, I'm going to mark each logic fallacy you have with a number annotation.

I did not deny it, indeed both Eklipse and Martian are well educated people, and they know well how to argue correctly, unlike you Juq sadly, but this is mainly because you try to defend lost causes or arguments that cannot be defended beyond logic.
So let's begin the argumentation!

You want to something I started doing just out of interest while you were gone? I offered Ion Antonescu a proper debate using the 10 most important logic rules and said that each time he broke one of those rules, I would take away a point from him (-1). I started doing the same to you, but it quickly became too much to count casually. Though I did not run Ion's experiment for long (nor note the logic fallacies by each word), I bet your overall logic fallacies by each word is higher than Ion's formal debating.

Again Juq you do not frighten me, ever heard of the fable of the Ox and the Frog? I hope you did, here is an extract:

"Look at this magnificent ox!" he called to all his friends, "He's such a grand size for an animal, but he's no greater than I am if I tried."
The frog started puffing and swelled from his normal size.
"Am I as large as the wonderful ox?" he asked his friends.
"No, no, not near as grand as the ox," they replied.
So, the frog puffed himself up more and more, trying to reach the state of the ox.
"Now? now?" asked the frog.
"No, no. But please, don't try anymore," pleaded his friends.
But the frog continue to puff and swell, larger and larger until he finally burst. ” (Aesop's Fables)

You are the Frog here, trying to get bigger than the Ox: your pride, you fancy itself to be bigger than it already is, meanwhile other people should be less. Finally, this tumour swells itself at last untill it makes all fly. This what how this debate is going to end: because you have no any solid argumentation supported by true facts or reliable sources, or sources that you are exploiting in the wrong way, this will eventually end, and as the Frog you will burst.

I'm not afraid of making sharp phrases that are logic fallacies when I'm dealing with you, since I know that I can't top you in logic fallacy making (congratulations).

Again, you are confirming what I told you about the Aesop's fable, "I know better than you I am better than you". You have apparently no capacity in self-analysis, rethink over what you posted, and question yourself about "what's wrong about what I said", and finally admit that others can also be right.

I assume Callicles is someone that the ancient Greeks hated as much as those pesky dragons in Ethiopia

Juq, you are off topic again and again, tell me more about those "pesky dragons" and how Callicles (that I guess you never heard of) are related? I guess here you build a kind of inapropriate metaphor, if you want to learn how to write a correct metaphor and master your rhetorical skills, then open some Greek philosphers' masterpieces (I already told you one thousand time and will tell you again), instead of your website you are reading about "logic fallacies" that you are yourself not even able to respect (I will show you later).
A first step would be to help your argumentation with fables, that's a good start. And, if you want help and some good ressources feel free to mail me.

so you have to insult me to further your argument (that's a logic fallacy).

Insult you? ah hypocrisy...
« Panda is mad »
Juq excepted you in the WL forum, I do not see anyone else with so rude manners (and you tell me about how to be polite?) and so tactless that you indeed insult people certainly without even figure it out by yourself.

Second of all, of course you think you're right when you're arguing your point - you very rarely argue when you think you're wrong,

I totally agree with you here, I rarely argue when I think I am wrong, and I am open to debate if I see I am presenting wrong facts. Juq, truth be told, this is something you should definitely train more.

As Socrates said « Perhaps we may be wrong; if so, you in your wisdom should convince us that we are mistaken in preferring justice to injustice. »
Prove you are right, but prove it well with wisdom and good arguments and sources: Juq this your main deficiency.

and as I explained to you in the chat - the grounds why we can't say something like "Why are you arguing when you're wrong?",

besides that it's very self-centred, is that a whole argument can use only this sentence by both sides, and I suspect that this argument would convince noone.

You got it almost right, the whole argument can convince people if you show them that your arguments are right or the closest from the truth: this is why enlighten your paragraphs with trustworthy sources is very important Juq.
Stop presenting your arguments without sources other than yourself's own judgement (the whole Galicia or temperatures arguments)

It's ok to be against logic, as Oxford says to us:
Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity

This is just what I said earlier, « strict principles of validity » but yours were utterly wrong, you kept not listening because your pride is stronger than anything else (truly read again the Ox and the Frog)

Principles of validity change - in some Muslim majority countries, the principles of validity are highlighted in the Quran

Ahah, here again you were presenting an argument (principles of validity) that you destroyed yourself with a misused source. Why ? Because someone can easily argue and answer about it, the Quran is a religious book, with very questionnable sources (sorry for the pious people), if you follow the Quran then, let's say God created the world in 7 days and 5,000 years ago and refute every scientific advances and discoveries that cannot be refuted with any logic. I rely my argument on scientific/empiric facts, I do not trust any other very dubious sources.

and there is a mindset that women are inferior and weaker and should not think for themselves in many countries, most UN governmentally enforced by Arabia (women can't drive, even). I'm not saying they're right or the equal gender rights countries are right here, but one of them has to be wrong. So, Callicles so far is not in the wrong, as you're describing him to me.

Callicles had some qualities, and was renowned to be a good orator and politician, because he was a demagog (you would notice that most of nowadays' successful politicians are into demagogia). And Callicles, like you, would defend something beyond any logic : Callicles is excessivity, Socrates and Plato were his strict opposite, invalidating his thesis because excessivity and pure demagogia never proved to solve a problem or answer it (say that to any politician leaders).
Hence, the dialogue can lead to true only if each of the speakers is actually open to it, sadly Juq here you are not open to the dialogue, that's why I compared you to Callicles, because whatever I say, you will always disagree even if the logic and facts prove that you are wrong and you will remain forever in your initial opinion (by the way this is how religious fanatics work). In other words , you confuses dialectics and rhetoric.

You're just going to bring up everything in the chat? Ok, how about let's ask the community about what word they would use: Ba'athism or your "Baas". Just since there are Castillan* folk there doesn't give them a doctorate in Spanish* geographic names, they can be wrong.

Also, you notice how I said they were Castillan? Well, here, I use the word "Castillan" to mean being of the majority ethnicity and speaking the tongue of the old Castillan Kingdom, Spanish is a more vague word in the sense I'm using it - of or relating to Spain. Look this up in your Oxford if this is confusing you.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Castilian
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Spanish

I dont know what were you trying to say, I myself use the word « Castilian » (you spelled it wrong) I am of Basque ethnicity and in my langage, we refer the Spanish langage most of the time as « Gaztelana » (exact translation of Castilian) .
Castilian is a word used in the Iberian peninsula, but if you go to Latin America you would just use « Spanish », there is really no need to argue about it since I agree about this.

You see you are looking forward for fictional arguments, because you are always in the denial and because you think I would criticize each of your sayings, well sorry to disappoint you Juq, but I am not « mad » (as you said with your legendary tactfulness earlier), I know when people are right and when I am wrong,

What about you ?

(part 2)

Anyhow, so they can't even really have much of this automatic doctorate since they're Castillan, not Galizan. Nobody else? That's odd, isn't it? An idiot and 2 Spanish nationalists and me, I'm glad we're not in a democracy together. The first American comes along, and he says that Galiza is an acceptable name, so I'm not even alone, as you claim.

« an idiot », recall me what did you say earlier ? « so you have to insult me to further your argument » : guess what ! You failed yourself into your so called « logic fallacy » ! Pathetic.

And here you go again, i dont know if to « deny the truth » is part of your « logic fallacies » sacred texts, but you confirm one time more about what I said earlier, you are closed about any real dialogue, and even if you are wrong you wont accept anyone else to contradict you, because of your very big pride Juq. Galicia is the word chosen in English refering to the Spanish province located in the North West of the Iberian Peninsula. Galiza is the name used in the Galician language, but correct me if I am wrong :

- Do you say French or Français ?
- Do you say Poland or Polska ?
- Do you say Britanny or Breizh ?
- Do you say China or 中国 ?

Hence goes :
Do you say GALICIA or GALIZA ?

You got my point I hope, and if not I have thousand of other examples :)

As for my "no solid arguments", you want to know what my solid arguments are? The Galizan/Portuguese tongue, which is the majority tongue in Galiza. Your solid argument(s) until this point? A tongue that's a minority tongue in the region? Well, might as well start calling Poland "Pol'sha" since Belarusian is a minority tongue there, or perhaps Belgium as "Belgien" since German is minority tongue there.

“Galizan” you say, you cannot even spell it correctly in the native language, in Galician the language is called “Gallego” not Galizan. Even if I were following your logic, you are contradicting yourself since you even do not use the proper native name of this language. “que vergoña!” (that's Galician for “what a shame!” dear juq)


And last but not least to definitely end this ridiculous debate, and show you how wrong you are:
Guess what? “Galicia” is also used in the Galician language itself!
https://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galicia

It's not sad if someone can't provide a source

Wouah bougre Dieu! (forgive my French), this it is the height of ridicule, this shows how bad you are in expressing yourself, if you are presenting an argument without sources or anything that shows you are right, then my poor Juq, do not be surprised if people do not take you seriously.

and also, I was wondering when you were going to start including more sources in your quarreling replies, if ever, since that's one of your constant criticisms. (Actually, I was more than just wondering, I was very anxious, I started crying, Koala, why won't you put sources with your otherwise hypocritic comments? I was very mournful at the burial of using sources, but now I am so euphoric that you have used a source, even two! The sources have been resurrected!)

Hypocritical comments come from you not me, you refuse to argue properly, I will give you another definition of a word you shall definitely learn:
Misleading— a comment without solid proofs contradicts the well-known facts

No need to say more.

Anyhow, I don't doubt that Galicia is a valid name for the region, but just since it's valid doesn't mean it's better or good to use at all, f.e. in the English-speaking world, nigger. Also, you don't use a flipping dictionary as an encyclopaedia. You won't get very far in any field. A diaologue to show:

You missed again an occasion to shut your mouth dear Juq, the source I provided came from the online version of the Oxford English Dictionnary, a well known national institution and a reference publication.

- Hmm, I wonder what Karkalpakstan is, I better look it up in the Oxford. Oh, not there, guess it's not a word.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakalpakstan
- http://www.britannica.com/place/Karakalpakstan

- Hmm, I wonder what a "Moskal" is, I better look it up in the Oxford. Oh, not there, guess it's not a word.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moskal
- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Moskal

-Hmm, I wonder what "trinitroglycerine" is, I better look it up in the Oxford. Oh, not there, guess it's not a word.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin
- http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3441700127/nitroglycerin.html

Anyhow, here is Galiza. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galiza&redirect=no and a Castillan source http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/galicia/2008/06/08/0003_6886803.htm saying that Galizan province officially is Galicia, but who calls Taiwan "China"? And they say that it is ok to call it Galiza, as well.

OMG, you are beyond redemption, I pity you man.

Everything you stated here is wrong... Greek thinkers must be turning over in their grave for your lack of ponderous comments and knowledge:
Karkalpakstan, you do not even know how to spell it correctly -_- Karakalpakstan...

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Karakalpak

Trinitroglycerine, unlike you did for my own articles and sources, I read your articles but here you talk about Nitroglycerin so here you have your Oxford article:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/fr/definition/anglais/nitroglycerine

Moskal:
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195081374.001.0001/acref-9780195081374-e-43773


And if you think that showing some random words would be enough to criticize the Oxford University Press, who the hell are you? Ah yeah a ridiculous self-confident frog trying to get bigger than a Ox...

I think Galiza is a better word since there is no confusion with Galicia, which is a region in Poland, ok? Easy grounds to understand, I hope.

Juq, you are far from being qualified about bringing new definitions and spelling, stop being a hypocrit man.

I acknowledged your table, I said it was shabby (in fahrenheit, better wipe off the tears)and gave new ones, that are most likely better, though I'm not going to say that they are better since this is a logic fallacy and just arrogant in general, sounds like something you'd do.

You're welcome to find a reliable cold table that takes in comfort as well, I could not find one by light searching. And this doesn't show what whether you can endure, just shows you dangerously cold the weather is, like your graph. And my heat table? It's not of what you can "endure", so what have you to say for that?

And it's not indicating 5-22 since you can't accurately measure comfort in this case to the nearest tenth.

Again, your pride and arrogance are unveiled “I acknowledged your table, I said it was shabby”, Juq is expert in everything and thinks that he is better than everyone: giving new definitions and spelling and neglecting temperature tables because he thinks he is better qualified than any of those ignorant meteorologists, scientists and climatologists that made that table full of lies!
Unless you are a proven scholar/scientist in this field of study Juq you are not the one qualified to say “you're welcome to find a reliable cold table”.
And again about your sources they just showed extreme temperatures and their effect on human body.

Has your arrogance no limits? This is why I stopped counting your logic fallacies, since it seems it doesn't, and why bother counting something infinite, such as this or your dumbness?

I compared you to Callicles earlier, actually you are worse than him, and you do not deserve that title, you keep insulting me (“dumbness”) and contradict yourself everytime about your sacred logic fallacies (as insulting as you said earlier must be a logic fallacy)... Argh... damn I thought you could do better really I thought you were good at arguing, but I will relegate you to the very bottom of rhetorical proficiency, alongside Tyrion.

Koala, no! Don't throw your rattle at Tyrion, that's not nice, tyke, is it?

Tyrion is banned and yes he is a kid, sadly you are not better than him about the childish part of overreacting and arguing like a 5 yo kid. I hope you wont turn like him as a massive troll failure.

But oh wait you are also in that category since you brought your stupid alt “coppertitanium” to our clan to make shit inside of it, you have no shame Juq.

Edited 10/1/2015 14:09:25

So Eklipse, what do you think of the American plans of false flag deeds in the 1960s (including a terrorist attack) in order to get grounds for war on Cuba?

You'll have to specify. What plans are we speaking of exactly? Were they ever more than proposed plans?

Operation Northwoods, the American president did not approve, some morality left in him, maybe, if only for his own country's folk. The military did not like him and there's some speculation about the CIA or some similar agency assassinating him, though probably as frowned upon as saying the September 11 attacks were false flag attacks. Anyhow, the full document was not revealed until 2001 ("Hey, mates, looks like the military wants to kill you...uh, but still fight and serve, and be prepared to die for your country! God bless America."), so hardly anyone knows anything about it.

These were more than proposed plans, they had a detailed deed plan, they just weren't executed. Probably right after Kennedy died, a new secret document was drafted up, changing one letter of the original document. Anyhow, here is the full thing: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

Both are bad, in my opinion

But why? Patriotism is better than apathy. Apathetic citizens are the worst because many of them can't be bothered to do anything that doesn't benefit them directly.

As you're describing it, apathetic also means rightist citizens. Anyhow, why should you advance something that very often kills folk or screws them over? No government is good, as you later on say, so why should you help them, when you can, say, donate 100 USD to Wikipedia or one of those programmes to give each Congolese an apple a day? You could donate to some projects which you like and you don't think are too selfish, but donating your money or effort to a government, that the next day, will still spend too much money on military and big businesses and less on universal healthcare?

Better an "apathetic" citizen, rather than a pro-empire one.

Also, a big problem with patriotism is that you can't trust them to speak about their country, since they are much more likely to be blind when they're reading about the massacres their country did, or the wars that they lost. They're more likely to take their country's side no matter what.

As for the third part, the wars in the Middle East comes to mind, and I don't really have a rebuttal for that. However, every soldier who went into Iraq was purely a volunteer. If the U.S resorted to bringing back the draft, well then we'd have a serious issue.

They can't quit when they want, though. They may have went there of their own accord, but they didn't stay there of their own accord. And yeah, it's pretty much their fault ultimately for this, but it's promoted by the American (and trans-governmental) image of "liberation" and just a sort of not mentioning the gore, the pain and the blood and the death. Soldiers that do stay for a longer time than required are often psychopaths, wanting to kill. I knew a Tajik soldier in the civil war, he was in his 40-s. He was in a mission and nearby, he heard some movement from a house they thought was deserted. They had to toss a grenade in there and shoot on sight if they ran out without thinking twice, more importantly, without knowing who they were.

To put it in Warlight jargon, it's like a game of Warlight with rigged or sucky settings. It's your fault for not reading the settings, but that doesn't mean the gamemaker is a good mate.

My anecdote about the Tajik agent may be a bit of a logic fallacy, but deeds like that aren't uncommon.

(I'm unpatriotic and proud though, like the gays :)).

The gays are unpatriotic? I have a close friend who is both very patriotic and gay at the same time. However, he defies almost every stereotype associated with homosexuals so I probably shouldn't use him for an example.

I didn't mean the gays were unpatriotic, I meant that they're proud of what's often used as an insult.

That said, gays don't really support their governments who are reluctant to give marriage rights, and in some cases, even legalise gayness.

The U.S receives a very disproportionate amount of flak on this forum. Very rarely is Russia, China, or any European country put on trial.

I've never said that the U.S is perfect, and I've admitted it's mistakes and problems before. However, it receives more hate from certain users than is really warranted.

Negative propoganda/advertisments are proven to be more truth-containing than positive propoganda/advertisments. In psychology, I think it's called negativity bias. You can say "Oh, it's great, it's super.", and that's generally ok, and it's generally ok to call someone in society these things, too, deserved it or not. They don't want to say though, "Oh, they're awful, it's terrible,", since that's just mudflinging - they need to back it up with truths and statistics more, as I see it. Unfortunately, folk rarely get flak about giving too much praise to someone.

I think there was a popular governmental saying in America: The best way to fight communism is to educate yourself about it. Educated by American documentaries and news, of course they're not going to mention or barely mention that universities are free, the public fare is free/near 0, everyone gets a roofed dwelling, so on. They're going to say "Oh, no, a valiant capitalist ally is under attack, we must repel the Communists, who otherwise, would enslave the population and reduce them to a sad existence."

Anyhow, what I'm saying is that Americans already know about the bad things that other countries are doing, for a big bit (needs to be more threads about India's evils), but they often refuse to acknowledge their own country's faults. Smedley Butler (the player), he used to be a nationalist American, but as he says, he got a more worldly outlook here and learned why America is not so great.

You know about China's Cultural Revolution. You know about Russia's Great Purge. But do you know how effective the Lend-Lease was to the Russia (many claim Russia would lose the war if they didn't get it)? Not very (in my opinion, I can bring up some statistics if you want). And many forget that it's a loan - Russia payed it back in the 60s or 70s, with America getting some interest and a profit, a true capitalist success.

Edit: Oh boy, Koala got an awful post. I'm not going to answer it now, I haven't even fully read it, but I bet it has the words "idiot" "hypocrite" and various others attributed to me, as well as mentioning "Callicalles" and some other ancient Greeks, oh, and wondering about why I argue when I'm wrong.

Edited 10/1/2015 16:16:40

Apparently according to some French news, the Russians are currently starting some operations and aerial bombing, but not only against the Islamists, actually toward every people against the Syrian Regime ^^'


Anyone have any other news about the current operations?

Edited 10/1/2015 16:34:37

Edited 10/1/2015 16:32:51

Russian aircraft carried out a bombing attack against Syrian opposition fighters, including at least one group trained by the C.I.A., eliciting angry protests from American officials.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU5cMZymSr0

ok these news are interesting Sasha.

"its the end of september, why are you here? youre supposed to be asleep" xddd

(1/4? More will be written later, until then, this argument does not exist yet. Hail Aristoteles.)

(first of all sorry again about being off topic with this thread prab, I had to answer Juq's hypocrisy and lies, secondly I had to divide my post into 2 because it was too long)

Yes, my hypocrisy and lies, you forgot to mention bigotry, racism, zealotry, dumbness, and much more.

Supported by the worst troll ever Irony? Nice support! Congratulations! (I think it must have been him but since his comments have been deleted by fizzer..)

I certainly won't say Irony is great, smart, insightful, but at least he's more insightful than you - he actually reads some links folk give him, instead of saying "Oh, no, I can't read this junk! It's not written by Aristoteles! I only read classics."

A debate with hands is called a fistfight :)

Also, Eklipse and Martian are being somewhat mindly as they usually are, they are usually fine to argue with.

Koala, I'm going to mark each logic fallacy you have with a number annotation.

Nice quote/quote.

I did not deny it, indeed both Eklipse and Martian are well educated people, and they know well how to argue correctly, unlike you Juq sadly, but this is mainly because you try to defend lost causes or arguments that cannot be defended beyond logic.
So let's begin the argumentation!

Ask Eklipse to rank this list by who argues the most "correctly": your brain, your ear or me, go ahead. At least your ear knows to shut up when it's arguing for "lost causes or arguments that cannot be defended beyond logic.", unlike your other organ.

Again Juq you do not frighten me, ever heard of the fable of the Ox and the Frog? I hope you did, here is an extract:

"Look at this magnificent ox!" he called to all his friends, "He's such a grand size for an animal, but he's no greater than I am if I tried."
The frog started puffing and swelled from his normal size.
"Am I as large as the wonderful ox?" he asked his friends.
"No, no, not near as grand as the ox," they replied.
So, the frog puffed himself up more and more, trying to reach the state of the ox.
"Now? now?" asked the frog.
"No, no. But please, don't try anymore," pleaded his friends.
But the frog continue to puff and swell, larger and larger until he finally burst. ” (Aesop's Fables)

You are the Frog here, trying to get bigger than the Ox: your pride, you fancy itself to be bigger than it already is, meanwhile other people should be less. Finally, this tumour swells itself at last untill it makes all fly. This what how this debate is going to end: because you have no any solid argumentation supported by true facts or reliable sources, or sources that you are exploiting in the wrong way, this will eventually end, and as the Frog you will burst.

1. This wasn't supposed to frighten you, I don't think anybody would be frightened by this.
2. You're avoiding what I said and going again with your fallback on "you're dumb, you're arrogant, you have no true truths or reliable sources", and you did this even after I said earlier that that's your typic fallback argument, my god.
3. You're citing a fairytale as part of your argument for why I'm bad. (Animals talk 100% confirmed).

Again, you are confirming what I told you about the Aesop's fable, "I know better than you I am better than you". You have apparently no capacity in self-analysis, rethink over what you posted, and question yourself about "what's wrong about what I said", and finally admit that others can also be right.

You know what? I am very confident when I say that you make far more logic fallacies than me. Criticise me all you want for this, I'm not just going to close my eyes and say "It's not written by antique Greek philosopher so invalid!" unlike you did when you refused to read either one of two links I gave you about most important logic fallacies.

Juq, you are off topic again and again, tell me more about those "pesky dragons" and how Callicles (that I guess you never heard of) are related? I guess here you build a kind of inapropriate metaphor, if you want to learn how to write a correct metaphor and master your rhetorical skills, then open some Greek philosphers' masterpieces (I already told you one thousand time and will tell you again), instead of your website you are reading about "logic fallacies" that you are yourself not even able to respect (I will show you later).
A first step would be to help your argumentation with fables, that's a good start. And, if you want help and some good ressources feel free to mail me.

What I'm saying is one feature on a geographic guide published by one of those antique Greeks; when they got to Ethiopia, they said to be careful, as 15-metre dragons live there. The Ancient Greeks are flawed, especially compared with modern knowledge.

Insult you? ah hypocrisy...
« Panda is mad »
Juq excepted you in the WL forum, I do not see anyone else with so rude manners (and you tell me about how to be polite?) and so tactless that you indeed insult people certainly without even figure it out by yourself.

On Warlight, I've insulted only one person one time for their argument without being insulted first, I should not have done that, I regret that. If you want, you can find that, generalise, and say how I am always insulting other folk. Until then, you're just giving another insult (it's not proven true, so you can't say it as truth, so actually it's a double logic fallacy - theorem jurisdiction and insulting person).

I totally agree with you here, I rarely argue when I think I am wrong, and I am open to debate if I see I am presenting wrong facts. Juq, truth be told, this is something you should definitely train more.

Ok, so why were you criticising me for "arguing when I'm wrong"? Wrong or not, that's very self-centred to say. And nowadays, in online arguments, most (though not all) truths can't be debated about whether they're true or not - they're either undeniably true, or undeniably false, given a source, you can't debate there.

As Socrates said « Perhaps we may be wrong; if so, you in your wisdom should convince us that we are mistaken in preferring justice to injustice. »
Prove you are right, but prove it well with wisdom and good arguments and sources: Juq this your main deficiency.

I've posted more sources than you have here, and now, I can logically legally call you a hypocrite, since I've proved my claim.

You got it almost right, the whole argument can convince people if you show them that your arguments are right or the closest from the truth: this is why enlighten your paragraphs with trustworthy sources is very important Juq.

Logic fallacies are not forbidden from use in all settings, especially in advertisements and propoganda. Dumb folk will slip right through them in most cases - for example, put a poorly clad pretty man or woman on the stuff and folk will be more likely to buy it (elitist bandwagon fallacy); American army commercial talks about one Afghan family that was saved and grateful to American military (emotional fallacy), advertisement barely talks about stuff at all (irrelevancy), so on. They help convince folk.

The grounds why logic fallacy rules were made were so that you wouldn't have to take time out of the actual argument to explain why it's invalid, nor to use it.

This is just what I said earlier, « strict principles of validity » but yours were utterly wrong, you kept not listening because your pride is stronger than anything else (truly read again the Ox and the Frog)

Actually, I won't read the Ox and the Frog again, but I'll cite an Aesop Fable I like more.

The Camel and the Arab
AN ARAB CAMEL-DRIVER, after completing the loading of his Camel,
asked him which he would like best, to go up hill or down. The
poor beast replied, not without a touch of reason: "Why do you
ask me? Is it that the level way through the desert is closed?"

Camels can talk, don't try to argue, Koala, since you'd be wrong.

Ahah, here again you were presenting an argument (principles of validity) that you destroyed yourself with a misused source. Why ? Because someone can easily argue and answer about it, the Quran is a religious book, with very questionnable sources (sorry for the pious people), if you follow the Quran then, let's say God created the world in 7 days and 5,000 years ago and refute every scientific advances and discoveries that cannot be refuted with any logic.

Did I say that I was going to argue about Islamic religion and separation of church and state? No, I only used this example to show that validity principles change.

I rely my argument on scientific/empiric facts, I do not trust any other very dubious sources.

Did you hear about the new research and development reforms in the EU? They are requiring every laboratory, scientific workplace and weapons development building to have a copy of Aesop's Fables, Schonwerth Stories and Alice in Wonderland prominently at hand.

And Callicles, like you, would defend something beyond any logic : Callicles is excessivity

Ok, why is excessivity bad?

Socrates and Plato were his strict opposite, invalidating his thesis because excessivity and pure demagogia never proved to solve a problem or answer it (say that to any politician leaders).

Oh, I see, Socrates and Platon did not even bother to argue really with him, just, liked to discredit his arguments with "you are arrogant" "your argument is awful" "you can't solve any problems", that sounds here.

(2/4)

Hence, the dialogue can lead to true only if each of the speakers is actually open to it, sadly Juq here you are not open to the dialogue, that's why I compared you to Callicles, because whatever I say, you will always disagree even if the logic and facts prove that you are wrong.

I'm open to dialogue - being closed to dialogue means I'm not responding/refusing to give a counterargument. Also, don't kid yourself, you're not sad. I told you that validity principles aren't the same everywhere, also, show me two, undisputable, undeniable truths where I am wrong here ("facts").

Also, go talk to Eklipse some more, if you don't want to be a hypocrite about "being open to dialogue".

you will remain forever in your initial opinion (by the way this is how religious fanatics work).

You know what this is? 1: Unsupported, 2: Not true*, and 3: an insult folk use when the other folk isn't agreeing with them.

*Faith, for example - I am swayed, now I am atheist. Source: Quotation from me (I know you don't like myself, so if you can find a better source on categoric and countable variables of myself, do bring it)

You're just going to bring up everything in the chat? Ok, how about let's ask the community about what word they would use: Ba'athism or your "Baas". Just since there are Castillan* folk there doesn't give them a doctorate in Spanish* geographic names, they can be wrong.

Also, you notice how I said they were Castillan? Well, here, I use the word "Castillan" to mean being of the majority ethnicity and speaking the tongue of the old Castillan Kingdom, Spanish is a more vague word in the sense I'm using it - of or relating to Spain. Look this up in your Oxford if this is confusing you.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Castilian
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Spanish

Castilian is a word used in the Iberian peninsula, but if you go to Latin America you would just use « Spanish », there is really no need to argue about it since I agree about this.

I rely my argument on scientific/empiric facts, I do not trust any other very dubious sources.


Uh-oh, you used a very dubious source: most likely, yourself.

You see you are looking forward for fictional arguments, because you are always in the denial and because you think I would criticize each of your sayings, well sorry to disappoint you Juq, but I am not « mad » (as you said with your legendary tactfulness earlier), I know when people are right and when I am wrong,

What about you ?

Yes, I'm in denial that I'm a crackpot hypocrite lier bigot racist zealot dumbhead, and so are you, and so are very many folk. This is the same as your argument before - why do you argue/stop arguing if you're wrong? You have criticised all my sayings here, and you know in what situation I said that you were mad? It was when you were saying America is coward, why does not it invade while saying America does so much havoc and bad for the country it invades, you were losing your argument against Eklipse, so you had to say things like:

*Did you read what I said?
*Your quotation:Eklipse, you also said that ISIS would invade Israel and Turkey which is totally unlikely: they have no chance to match powerful armies.
Actual quotation: ISIS will probably have to invade Turkey or Israel before the general population of western countries even considers fighting them in full.
*About whether the US should have been involved or not in the Middle East, the answer is simple: No
*And again stop denying the truth
*Bush and his government asserted that it would bring democracy to this region? Oh really guess what we've got: ISIS...

Here is an example right now, where I am "changing my initial opinion" - I am beginning to think that Eklipse is right about the folk saying the same things.

Edited 10/2/2015 23:52:13

report Angry koala

Ion serious conversation going on don't ruin it

Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen!
SA marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt.
Kam'raden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen,
Marschier'n im Geist in unser'n Reihen mit.
Kam'raden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen,
Marschier'n im Geist in unser'n Reihen mit.
Die Straße frei den braunen Batallionen.
Die Straße frei dem Sturmabteilungsmann!
Es schau'n aufs Hakenkreuz voll Hoffnung schon Millionen.
Der Tag für Freiheit und für Brot bricht an!
Es schau'n aufs Hakenkreuz voll Hoffnung schon Millionen.
Der Tag für Freiheit und für Brot bricht an!
Zum letzten Mal wird Sturmalarm geblasen!
Zum Kampfe steh'n wir alle schon bereit!
Schon flattern Hitlerfahnen über allen Straßen.
Die Knechtschaft dauert nur noch kurze Zeit!
Schon flattern Hitlerfahnen über allen Straßen.
Die Knechtschaft dauert nur noch kurze Zeit!
Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen!
SA marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt.
Kam'raden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen,
Marschier'n im Geist in unser'n Reihen mit.
Kam'raden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen,
Marschier'n im Geist in unser'n Reihen mit.

Choose your side...

(3/4)

« an idiot », recall me what did you say earlier ? « so you have to insult me to further your argument » : guess what ! You failed yourself into your so called « logic fallacy » ! Pathetic.

Yes, I told you why I am less afraid to use sharp words around you.

And here you go again, i dont know if to « deny the truth » is part of your « logic fallacies » sacred texts, but you confirm one time more about what I said earlier, you are closed about any real dialogue, and even if you are wrong you wont accept anyone else to contradict you, because of your very big pride Juq. Galicia is the word chosen in English refering to the Spanish province located in the North West of the Iberian Peninsula. Galiza is the name used in the Galician language, but correct me if I am wrong :

- Do you say French or Français ?
- Do you say Poland or Polska ?
- Do you say Britanny or Breizh ?
- Do you say China or 中国 ?

Hence goes :
Do you say GALICIA or GALIZA ?

You got my point I hope, and if not I have thousand of other examples :)

But Galiza is already used in the English tongue; Galicia is more used, but Galiza is also acceptable - also, your examples are meaningless in such a very big booklender of site names - here are 5 counter examples

- Do you say France or França?
- Do you say Mongol or Menggu?
- Do you say America or Amérique?
- Do you say Guangdong or Canton?
- Do you say Britain or Prydain?

Even another source: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Galiza&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=6&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CGaliza%3B%2Cc0
Similar to https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Guangdong&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=6&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CGuangdong%3B%2Cc0

“Galizan” you say, you cannot even spell it correctly in the native language, in Galician the language is called “Gallego” not Galizan. Even if I were following your logic, you are contradicting yourself since you even do not use the proper native name of this language. “que vergoña!” (that's Galician for “what a shame!” dear juq)

I am not concerned with an argument over autonyms and when they should and are used - I am saying that the word Galiza should be used instead of Galicia, so for less confusion with the real Galicia. And let me show you a Galizan phrase: Espanha - não é Galiza

And last but not least to definitely end this ridiculous debate, and show you how wrong you are:
Guess what? “Galicia” is also used in the Galician language itself!
https://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galicia

I never said it wasn't - you could have even used my source for that, where the Royal Galizan Academy specifically said the official name is Galicia, but Galiza is also a valid name.

Wouah bougre Dieu! (forgive my French), this it is the height of ridicule, this shows how bad you are in expressing yourself, if you are presenting an argument without sources or anything that shows you are right, then my poor Juq, do not be surprised if people do not take you seriously.

So you are in clinic sadness thanks to my source lack?

and also, I was wondering when you were going to start including more sources in your quarreling replies, if ever, since that's one of your constant criticisms. (Actually, I was more than just wondering, I was very anxious, I started crying, Koala, why won't you put sources with your otherwise hypocritic comments? I was very mournful at the burial of using sources, but now I am so euphoric that you have used a source, even two! The sources have been resurrected!)

Hypocritical comments come from you not me, you refuse to argue properly, I will give you another definition of a word you shall definitely learn:
Misleading— a comment without solid proofs contradicts the well-known facts

No need to say more.

I already told you that if you want to learn how to express yourself and argue correctly, read the works of rhetorical masters of Ancient Greece, these are trustwhorthy works, not a random website with questionnable sources.

Yes, the sun is around the size of Peloponessia... these so-called cosmologists, they are just brainless zombies who have probably never read any of the works of the rhetorical masters of ancient Greece.

Also, Wikipedia is the "website with questionable sources - why are you using it? What are you thinking, backstabbing the "Ancient Greek Rhetorical Masters"?

You missed again an occasion to shut your mouth dear Juq, the source I provided came from the online version of the Oxford English Dictionnary, a well known national institution and a reference publication.

Stop trying to play piano with a knife - you can have the best knife in the world, certified by all knifemakers, crafted by molecule-thick layer to molecule-thick layer in 1800s Okinawa, but you can't play piano on it. You can't use a dictionary as an encylopaedia, not even a specialised dictionary. Wikipedia and Wiktionary say this specifically in their guidelines. And you are missing many opportunities to "shut your mouth" as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:What_Wiktionary_is_not

OMG, you are beyond redemption, I pity you man.

Sun Yat-Sen was beyond redemption, too, to overthrow the Chinese government, but he did it in less than a year.

Everything you stated here is wrong... Greek thinkers must be turning over in their grave for your lack of ponderous comments and knowledge:
Karkalpakstan, you do not even know how to spell it correctly -_- Karakalpakstan...

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Karakalpak

Luckily, Greek thinkers didn't speak English so they should be stationary in their graves. And I misspelled it by one letter - knowing you, I should apologise, not to the Gods, nor you, nor myself, but Aristoteles and the Greek thinkers - syngomi.

And the word was not Karapalpak, it was Karapalpakstan.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/spellcheck/english/?q=Karakalpakstan

And every Uzbek would be turning in his grave, that is what is for sure.

A member of an indigenous people living in the Karakalpak autonomous republic of Russia, south of the Aral Sea.

Whoops, I accidentally went in the future 25 years too far when I looked that up, I almost forgot the year was 1990, ha, sorry about that. One sea, one country.

Trinitroglycerine, unlike you did for my own articles and sources, I read your articles but here you talk about Nitroglycerin so here you have your Oxford article:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/fr/definition/anglais/nitroglycerine

I didn't ask for nitroglycerine, I asked for Trinitroglycerine.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/spellcheck/english/?q=Trinitroglycerine

Moskal:
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195081374.001.0001/acref-9780195081374-e-43773

That's not OED.

And if you think that showing some random words would be enough to criticize the Oxford University Press, who the hell are you? Ah yeah a ridiculous self-confident frog trying to get bigger than a Ox...

No, I'm an Arabian trader talking to his camel. And I wasn't even criticising Oxford University; but you can't use a dictionary as an encyclopaedia, even Oxford Dictionary.

Juq, you are far from being qualified about bringing new definitions and spelling, stop being a hypocrit man.

Stop being a hypocrite? I'm sorry I started this argument about Galiza's spelling - was talking about something else completely and mentioned Galiza and you immediately said Galicia*, did some research and turns out Galiza was right.

The English tongue was not made by a council of linguistics professors; nor was Volapük made by one, nor is Karakalpakstan in Russia, south of the Aral Sea.

Edited 10/8/2015 02:22:37

(4/4)

Again, your pride and arrogance are unveiled “I acknowledged your table, I said it was shabby”, Juq is expert in everything and thinks that he is better than everyone: giving new definitions and spelling and neglecting temperature tables because he thinks he is better qualified than any of those ignorant meteorologists, scientists and climatologists that made that table full of lies!
Unless you are a proven scholar/scientist in this field of study Juq you are not the one qualified to say “you're welcome to find a reliable cold table”.
And again about your sources they just showed extreme temperatures and their effect on human body.

I thought they were unveiled a while ago, weren't they? And since you love Oxford so much (don't backstab the Ancient Greek Rhetorical Masters - they know better!), you should know that you can't unveil something again.

Show or announce publicly for the first time.

In truth, the first sentence you said to me in this thread - Juq, you are as similar as Callicles, the one that want to be right even if the logic is against him: you show your arrogance, and has no moderation in your comments (and you were telling me about how to be polite ah).


If you didn't like my cold table (I assume that is what you didn't like, though your babbling I may misunderstood), I told you what to do - I couldn't find a comfort cold table, so you could if you didn't like mine. You should be happy - you have the chance to make day happy again with a source. And you squander it? No matter what level of learning you are, you can ask others to give a source to you. And if this is about me classifying a source as "reliable" or not, than what I must ask is two frains, 1: Aren't modern scholars and scientists something to the effect of "lazy, dumb idiots"? and 2: Why are you judging a source as unreliable, then?

I already told you that if you want to learn how to express yourself and argue correctly, read the works of rhetorical masters of Ancient Greece, these are trustwhorthy works, not a random website with questionnable sources.
here is a reliable source (something that you are sadly not able to provide each time)

Your table is in Fahrenheit - not scientifically accepted - dead giveaway.

I compared you to Callicles earlier, actually you are worse than him, and you do not deserve that title, you keep insulting me (“dumbness”) and contradict yourself everytime about your sacred logic fallacies (as insulting as you said earlier must be a logic fallacy)... Argh... damn I thought you could do better really I thought you were good at arguing, but I will relegate you to the very bottom of rhetorical proficiency, alongside Tyrion.

Sorry, great god, oh Calicles, I failed you. I told you why I am not afraid to use sharp tongue - mainly since you refuse to learn about a logic fallacy is and very often show them, so you don't even get about me not following logic fallacies, I explained this earlier. I remembered you used to be half-decent at arguing, but either Warlight arguing got raised to a much higher level while you were gone, or your arguing skills have been downgraded loads.

Tyrion is banned and yes he is a kid, sadly you are not better than him about the childish part of overreacting and arguing like a 5 yo kid. I hope you wont turn like him as a massive troll failure.

Whose (ove)reaction is this?

Ba'ath - I dropped the subject, then you brought up "Baas" again here.
Galiza - I was talking about Spain in general, I said Galiza and you said Galicia*. After a short bicker, forgotten, then you brought it up here.
Weather conditions - may be mine, but I didn't bring it up again, unlike...

But oh wait you are also in that category since you brought your stupid alt “coppertitanium” to our clan to make shit inside of it, you have no shame Juq.

CopperTitanium has no manager rights, you do - you can ask knyte for more information on this, but it's better for him if you don't, since you can't tell apart criticism and insults when they're written and when you write them.

Who the hell revived this thread?

I think it was Ion. And while reviving the thread he also revived the text war between Xpapy and Angry Panda. Which I'm totally staying out of because those two are really slugging it out.